Opinion
No. 12–P–473.
2013-05-3
COMMONWEALTH v. George W. BUREAU.
By the Court (GRASSO, KATZMANN & GRAINGER, JJ.).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
The defendant was convicted by a jury in District Court of assault and battery on a person sixty years or older causing bodily injury. On appeal, he asserts that the trial judge abused his discretion by denying the defendant's motion in limine to exclude prior convictions of certain drug charges. We affirm.
The defendant asserts that the trial judge failed to exercise proper discretion in ruling on the motion in limine. We disagree. Evidentiary rulings are committed “to the sound discretion of the trial judge, and we review only for abuse of that discretion.” Commonwealth v. Springfield Terminal Ry. Co., 80 Mass.App.Ct. 22, 41 (2011), quoting from Commonwealth v. Arrington, 455 Mass. 437, 441 n. 6 (2009). The hearing transcript thoroughly contradicts the defendant's argument that the judge failed to balance the prejudicial effect of the prior convictions against their probative value. Indeed, the record here establishes that the judge exercised sound discretion in allowing the motion based on his review of the applicable authorities. See Commonwealth v. Carter, 429 Mass. 266, 269 (1999); G.L. c. 233, § 21; Mass. G. Evid. § 609 (2011).
Next, the defendant claims that the Commonwealth's burden was lessened as a result of the ruling on the motion in limine because the jury were not able properly to assess the defendant's self-defense theory. We are not persuaded by this argument. The record demonstrates that the defendant raised the issue of self-defense through cross-examination of the witnesses and during his counsel's closing remarks. The judge instructed the jury on self-defense and the defendant does not raise any claim of infirmity with regard to the instruction as given. We think the issue of self-defense was squarely before the jury and fail to perceive how the defendant's decision not to testify would have shifted the Commonwealth's burden in the manner he suggests.
Inasmuch as we discern no error, it is immaterial that the defendant did not renew his objection at trial.
Judgment affirmed.